But on a side note, in case most "super-conferences" plan to have 16 (the closest would be C-USA), will there be a 4-pod system? Or a 2-division, 4-section system?

I think geographicallyb and schedule-wise the 4-pod system is best but I don't know how a CCG would be selected. The 2 division system is better for a CCG. I think the 2 division system will be used unless someone comes up with a way to work the 4-pod system.

You have a point BePcr. And I was wondering. In a certain perspective for division play. I've tried to make a sample diagram related with it:

Oh, have a 9-game conference-play schedule. Each team will face ALL 3 others within their own pod from their own division once, while facing the other 4 from the other pod within their own division, and face one school from each of the 2 pods of the other division (on a 4-year span; and for home-and-home basis on an 8-year span).

The top teams of each division will meet up in the C-USA CCG. Lemme know your thoughts.

But on a side note, in case most "super-conferences" plan to have 16 (the closest would be C-USA), will there be a 4-pod system? Or a 2-division, 4-section system?

I think geographicallyb and schedule-wise the 4-pod system is best but I don't know how a CCG would be selected. The 2 division system is better for a CCG. I think the 2 division system will be used unless someone comes up with a way to work the 4-pod system.

You have a point BePcr. And I was wondering. In a certain perspective for division play. I've tried to make a sample diagram related with it:

Oh, have a 9-game conference-play schedule. Each team will face ALL 3 others within their own pod from their own division once, while facing the other 4 from the other pod within their own division, and face one school from each of the 2 pods of the other division (on a 4-year span; and for home-and-home basis on an 8-year span).

The top teams of each division will meet up in the C-USA CCG. Lemme know your thoughts.

16 is a goood conference number but I don't see the group of 5 wanting too many over 12 teams bc of monetary purposes

I know what you mean. But the same applies for the Power 5 conferences. Plus, the maximum number of teams should be 12-14, in my opinion. Hope those proposal-planning leagues won't suffer the same fate like the WAC had in the late 90's. lol

I know that they're SUNY-Buffalo. But within the other top campuses in the SNUY system, was Buffalo the main flagship campus? Just wondering. It's like reminding me of which of the first Cal State schools was the main flagship campus of that system.

That's a good question. According to wiki, San Jose St is the oldest Cal St system school. Also, Albany is the oldest SUNY school, beating Buffalo out by 2 years. All that makes sense since Albany is the capital of New York and San Jose is in the Bay Area like Berkeley which is the origin campus of the UCal system.

SUNY does not have an official flagship campus. There are "honorary" ones, or campuses that are distinguished as the major campuses, or "centers," of which Buffalo is. The others are Albany, Stony Brook, and Binghamton.

For CUSA, if they continue to expand (or just maintain 14 through potential losses), I think it's smart they take programs who's football may be shaky, but can assist with basketball. Programs like WKU, MTSU, Charlotte, and ODU are no strangers to the tournament. Who would help the conference more were it in need of additional members: another Sun Belt'er, JMU, or programs like Missouri State, or even UMass?

For CUSA, if they continue to expand (or just maintain 14 through potential losses), I think it's smart they take programs who's football may be shaky, but can assist with basketball. Programs like WKU, MTSU, Charlotte, and ODU are no strangers to the tournament. Who would help the conference more were it in need of additional members: another Sun Belt'er, JMU, or programs like Missouri State, or even UMass?

How about New Mexico State? In a basketball perspective, the Aggies are gaining some recent success with some conference titles in the WAC (under the post-non-football era) in the latest years. Good for full membership status?

On a side note, for the D-I FBS level, there should be a small rule that a school should be with full membership status (while sponsoring primarily football and basketball), and not including non-football full members.

Who would help the conference more were it in need of additional members: another Sun Belt'er, JMU, or programs like Missouri State, or even UMass?

My guess is that JMU, a SBC member and then Mo State, would help CUSA more...in that order.JMU because they are a classy institution.A SBC member...because they are already up to speed.Mo State last, because they are still FCS and haven't upgraded their facilities and programs as of yet.

So, if they add JMU...then also pick up ULL or NMSU to round things out.

I have to figure that USM and UAB are tied at the hip. MTSU and WKU probably likewise. Charlotte and ODU you would think would have similar goals but after the debacle with the 2013/14 football series its hard to say how closely those schools work together. Due to geography and the fact that everyone knows they want in the MWC I doubt UTEP has many friends. LA Tech would probably like to be aligned with USM and UAB but its hard to say if those two schools reciprocate the feeling. Rice's old private school friends are all gone but I'm sure that due to their location and academic prestige that most everyone in C-USA wants to be friendly with the Owls and I imagine to some degree they form a Texas voting block with UNT and UTSA. Marshall is a wild card--they don't have any strong historic ties to anyone in C-USA.

That's a great question (I bolded it above)! I would say Rice holds as much or more power than any of the other schools in the conference. Southern Miss and UAB would be a close second in my opinion. I would say that UTEP and Marshall would be next, even though I think both of these schools are on their way out if the Mountain West and MAC come calling! As far as recent adds, I would have no idea. The Florida/Texas schools have the recruiting pull. I think Louisiana Tech has some sway, but that's just a shot in the dark. Honestly, I think this conference is actually well put together after I think about it. Solid markets and recent and semi-decent success in football and basketball.

Things would be perfectly paired up if, and ONLY if, UNC-Charlotte should have planned to join C-USA football for the upcoming season in 2014 instead of 2015. That way, both C-USA charters (Southern Miss and UAB) would be in the C-USA West by now. But with 13 out of 14 members (on a football perspective) for the 2014 season, it'll only get unbalanced. And only if Western Kentucky hadn't waited to join C-USA for 2015 (instead, it decided to jump-shift quickly), the Sun Belt would have secured a CCG for the first time, even if it's for only 1 season minimum.

Things would be perfectly paired up if, and ONLY if, UNC-Charlotte should have planned to join C-USA football for the upcoming season in 2014 instead of 2015. That way, both C-USA charters (Southern Miss and UAB) would be in the C-USA West by now. But with 13 out of 14 members (on a football perspective) for the 2014 season, it'll only get unbalanced. And only if Western Kentucky hadn't waited to join C-USA for 2015 (instead, it decided to jump-shift quickly), the Sun Belt would have secured a CCG for the first time, even if it's for only 1 season minimum.

Speaking of which, has C-USA announced its division structure for 2014 and then 2015 on? Logic would dictate that by 2015 USM and UAB will move to the West but screwy things happen.

Things would be perfectly paired up if, and ONLY if, UNC-Charlotte should have planned to join C-USA football for the upcoming season in 2014 instead of 2015. That way, both C-USA charters (Southern Miss and UAB) would be in the C-USA West by now. But with 13 out of 14 members (on a football perspective) for the 2014 season, it'll only get unbalanced. And only if Western Kentucky hadn't waited to join C-USA for 2015 (instead, it decided to jump-shift quickly), the Sun Belt would have secured a CCG for the first time, even if it's for only 1 season minimum.

Speaking of which, has C-USA announced its division structure for 2014 and then 2015 on? Logic would dictate that by 2015 USM and UAB will move to the West but screwy things happen.

I think I've seen an article of Southern Miss joining C-USA West for 2014. However, no division structure for 2015 and beyond yet. Here's a link: http://www.sunherald.com/2014/02/03/530 ... ision.html Despite of that happening, I still have my reasons to feel disappointed, with all the conference realignment and stuff.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum